Friday, October 31, 2008

I have been reading the report (compiled by Richard Abdy and Richard Hobbs, both of the British Museum) on the Newport Pagnell coin hoard that was discovered on December 1, 2006. It consisted of 1456 coins mostly dating to the 340s and 350s CE. The coins had been placed in a "squat coarseware storage jar".

Apparently the coin hoard had been "deposited on the same spot as a Roman rubbish pit or midden". The report continues: "due to the fact that the find had already been removed prior to investigation a stratigraphical relationship could not be established". In other words the precise archaeological context for the hoard had been lost during its removal in the dark of a December evening.

Other material noted in the report include brick, tile and mortaria fragments suggesting that this hoard has not an isolated find.

I have had further feedback about the discovery of the Newport Pagnell coin hoard. Julian Watters of the Verulamium Museum who acted as the Finds Officer for the case has informed me:

Just to clarify, it is a hoard of 1471 mid 4th century nummi. Most of the coins were initially recovered by the two finders; I was then called the next day and came out and did an excavation, recovering some pottery and more coins in the process.

He then adds:

The detectorists dug out the coins and then filled the hole in. The excavation was entirely my work (I think it was 2m by 2m). I'm not sure which photos you are referring to but if they show a man in a square hole, they were taken the following day.

Earlier this week I commented on the decision by the Milton Keynes Coroner relating to the discovery of a fourth century CE Roman coin hoard found in a field near Newport Pagnell. The two finders of the hoard, Dave Phillips and Barrie Plasom, should be commended for reporting their discovery.

My concern is that digging a 1 metre deep hole on a December evening ("it was pitch black and we couldn't see a thing") is not the best way to recover scientific information. Do the fragments of pottery relate to a pot that contained the coins? Why is it "believed [that] the hoard was deposited on a Roman rubbish pit"? More information is needed (and has been requested).

Thursday, October 30, 2008

Roger Bland of the Portable Antiquities Scheme (PAS) has published a hard-hitting review article of James Cuno's Who Owns Antiquity? ("What's yours is mine"), in the London Review of Books (November 6, 2008). Bland shows that Cuno has missed the point by concentrating on ownership:

Archaeologists' principal complaint is not that objects belong in the countries where they were made but that their uncontrolled trade is a major cause of the destruction of archaeological sites across the world.

Bland's wording could be tightened. The Euphronios krater has been returned to the country (Italy) where it was found rather than to the country (Greece) where it was made. And this is true for the batch of Athenian, Laconian and Corinthian pots that have been returned to Italy.

There is discussion of the 1970 UNESCO Convention, noting, "the real significance of the Unesco convention is that it shows the signatory states are serious about curbing the illicit trade in antiquities". He places this in the context of the UK's legislation including the Dealing in Cultural Objects (Offences) Act 2003. Bland also notes the growing problem of looting from eastern Europe.

Bland is critical of Cuno's approach:

Cuno makes no attempt to deal with the issue that most concerns archaeologists: the loss of information caused by the unscientific removal of objects from their native contexts. As an art historian, Cuno cannot see beyond the physical beauty of the artefacts that appear for sale, often with no information about their provenance.

Indeed Bland does not mince his words:

Cuno speaks as someone who feels that he should be free to acquire the artefacts of other cultures since his country has no culture of its own.

Given recent discussions of bronzes from Benin in relation to the Art Institute of Chicago, this comment rings true.

There is one correction needed for the review. The Turkish Government has not, as far as I know, been able to retrieve the upper part of the "Weary Herakles" once owned by Leon Levy and Shelby White (and now in the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston inv. 1981.783). The mention of the Lydian treasure is significant given the recent appearance of an apparent further piece at auction in Bonhams (and subsequently withdrawn).

Bland delivers a knockout final paragraph:

Who Owns Antiquity? is an example of US cultural imperialism at its worst. Cuno's assertion that people's desire to 'present their cultural heritage in their own territory' reflects 'self-interest on the part of "source" nations and those who support their claims' is breathtakingly arrogant in the light of the tremendous damage done in so many countries from Cambodia to Peru by a traffic in antiquities aimed at satisfying the demands of collectors and museums in the West.

There has been much comment about the return of 45 pre-Columbian antiquities to Peru (AFP). These pieces were handed over by King Juan Carlos and Queen Sofia of Spain during a state visit. At least twelve of the objects derived from illegal digging in the Lords of Sipan cemetery in the 1980s.

It is reported:

The artifacts were among 253 pieces that Spanish police seized in 2007 from a warehouse owned by Costa Rican Leonardo Patterson, a renowned antiquities dealer and former U.N. cultural attache.

Patterson denies any wrongdoing, saying the artifacts were on loan from German businessman and collector Anton Roeckl for the exhibit.

"I wish they would keep my name out of it," Patterson said Monday in Germany. "I gave all that stuff back to Mr. Roeckl. It's his."

Roeckl declined to comment.

The remaining 208 artifacts from the seizure are being packaged in Spain and will be repatriated shortly, National Culture Institute director Cecilia Bakula said.

A profile of Anton Roeckl has appeared: Eberhard Vogt, "Sammler ohne Grenzen", Focus Magazin, no. 14, April 3, 2000. This includes a discussion of the Kunstbeteiligungsfonds der Deutschen Bank, as well as the testimony of Peter Gantz. Gantz notes that his pieces were purchased either at auction or "ordnungsgemaess erworben" (in other words, purchased in "good faith").

Wednesday, October 29, 2008

A hoard of some 1400 Roman coins dating to the 4th century CE have been recovered from an archaeological site near Newport Pagnell (Laura Hannam, "Treasure hunters set to coin it with Roman haul", MK News). The recovery took place in the dark during a December evening: "It was about 5.30pm at this time of year so it was pitch black and we couldn't see a thing." And this was not a surface find: the hoard was about 1 metre (c. 3 feet) below the surface. The report adds, "it is believed the hoard was deposited on a Roman rubbish pit." Sadly this archaeological context is now disrupted.

Paul Barford has already commented on the story making the point that this find shows that Roman coins can be found in association with an archaeological site. Indeed the hoard contradicts the misinformation generated by Dave Welsh, one of the officers of the Ancient Coin Collectors Guild (ACCG) (see also other comments).

I was listening to Front Row on BBC Radio 4 on Tuesday evening. Candace Bushnell was talking to Kirsty Lang about her new novel, One Fifth Avenue. Apparently one of the characters is a hedge fund manager who collects antiquities. Bushnell than commented on such a collector who had appeared in the New York Times in the last few months. Is this who I think it is?

Tuesday, October 28, 2008

The argument for displaying antiquities outside their country of origin is that these pieces are part of our shared, universal, cosmopolitan culture. Does it matter if archaic Athenian funerary sculptures are displayed in Manhattan? South Italian pottery in Melbourne? Roman imperial portraits in Malibu? Greek architectural sculptures in Munich? Egyptian funerary portraits from the Faiyum in Manchester?

Egyptian, Greek and Roman antiquities can be enjoyed, appreciated, and discussed, whether they are in Cairo, Athens, Istanbul, Rome, or indeed Paris, Berlin or Boston. Indeed they have the power to inspire new generations of students and scholars who have the enthusiasm to engage with their subject. How many students in Cambridge during the 1920s and 1930s were drawn into the study of the prehistoric Aegean by the Prehistoric displays in the Fitzwilliam Museum designed by Winifred Lamb? The pioneering careers of Robert Carr Bosanquet (Palaikastro), Alan Wace (Mycenae) and John Pendlebury (Crete) started with the study of this major university collection.

Then there are the national “universal” collections. From the hub of the Great Court of the British Museum it is possible to gain access to major masterpieces from Mesopotamia, Egypt, Anatolia, and mainland Greece. Hundreds of thousands of visitors flock to see the finds from Ur, the Rosetta stone, or the reliefs from that wonder of the ancient world, the Mausoleum of Halikarnassos. The collections are accessible (and free)—so long as you have a visa to get to the United Kingdom.

How were these collections formed? For the British Museum, the pieces come from a range of sources: from private collectors to expeditions. Grand Tourists acquired Roman copies of Greek sculptures discovered in the remains of Hadrian’s Villa at Tivoli from the antiquities dealers of eighteenth century Rome. Sir Charles Newton had the vision to explore the classical sites around the shores of the Aegean as part of the great competition to develop the holdings of “national” collections. (British excavators on the island of Melos in the mid-1890s were able to pinpoint the spot where the Aphrodite [“Venus de Milo”] had been found.) Excavations at Naukratis in the western Delta provided a range of archaic Greek pottery.

Is the concept of the universal museum under threat? Items from the historic collections are on the shopping list of countries: the portrait of Nefertiti in Berlin, the Parthenon sculptures from the British Museum. This is not to diminish the cultural claims of Egypt or Greece. There is a strong argument for the display of fifth century BCE Athenian architectural sculptures in a gallery that makes a direct visual link with the Parthenon.

But should the internationally important holdings of archaic funerary sculptures in the Metropolitan Museum of Art, many of them acquired by Gisela M.A. Richter, be returned to Athens for display alongside similar pieces in a national archaeological collection? As far as I know there has been no such suggestion and I would not expect there to be.

But I do not believe the aim of the Italian Government is to strip all international museums of their holdings of archaeological material that could have been discovered in Italy. We are unlikely to see tens of thousands of Apulian pots, Etruscan mirrors, or Roman sculptures being returned.

The Italian Government is sending out a clear signal that museums need to develop responsible acquisition policies that do not encourage the industrial-scale looting of archaeological sites. Would any curator recommend the acquisition of another “Sarpedon krater” if the museum faced the potential return of the piece (and thereby gaining adverse publicity)? And the Association of Art Museum Directors (AAMD) responded positively to this challenge in June 2008 by reaffirming the importance of checking that antiquities being considered for acquisition had not been looted in recent decades.

Any close observers of the recent return of antiquities to Italy will have noticed that not every piece identified by the Polaroid photographs seized from Giacomo Medici has been requested or returned. Museums have negotiated a short-list of finds to the satisfaction of both sides. There are, of course, high-profile pieces such as the “Sarpedon krater” but there are lesser pieces that emphasise the network of dealers and middlemen that supplied the appetites of the collectors. Patterns are beginning to emerge with the names of particular dealers, galleries and auction houses (from both sides of the Atlantic) appearing time and again. Responsible curators in these universal museums will be checking the histories of “ancient art” acquired since the 1970s.

The concept of the “universal museum” is not dead, but institutions that aspire to that title need to acquire and borrow with a more developed sense of ethical responsibility. Some North American museum directors have been making a case for the development of a “licit market” in antiquities drawing on the reserve collections of museums in Italy, Greece and elsewhere. It is suggested that the revenues raised could help for the display and conservation of the remaining collections. But should tomb-groups held by archaeological museums be broken up merely for the enjoyment of the visiting public? A more creative approach would be to develop a scheme of short- and long-term loans of archaeological material. Museums directors are, perhaps, less keen on this idea, as the antiquities will not in the end be “owned” by their institutions. Yet for the visiting and viewing public, such loans would broaden their enjoyment and understanding of the ancient world.

Universal museums are not dead. But they are seeking a new role in the 21st century. And part of that task is to reaffirm the importance of archaeological context to help with the interpretation of the material culture of the ancient world.

There's no telling what really occurred when the sarcophagus, which once held the remains of a noblewoman named Meretites, left a well-known Egyptian museum collection back in 1972, though Nelson curator Robert Cohon confirmed that heirs of the original private collector had been unloading the family holdings since the 1950s.

And there's no real sense of the character and intentions of the German and Swiss middlemen with whom the coffin resided over most of the next three decades.

That original transaction preceded by a decade Egypt's effort to tighten its laws on the excavation and export of antiquities.

Yet the Nelson's acquisition in 2007 had to wait for a German court to rule against Egypt's petition for the coffin's return. That judgment allowed the sale and export of the Meretites package, including two wooden boxes and a few hundred small funerary statues, to the museum in Kansas City, where the pieces will go on public view in early 2010 after a period of repair and study.

Alice Thorson and Steve Paul had originally covered the acquisition in December 2007 ("Nelson Gallery acquires ancient Egyptian funerary display; Museum acquires ancient (and costly) coffins for study and eventual display," The Kansas City Star December 19, 2007; see also museum press release). They even quoted Marc Wilson, the Nelson's director and CEO, "She's a celebrity, a rock star."

It was noted that the coffin of "Meretites (me-ret-it-es) was last displayed at three German museums in the late 1990s and Taiwan in 2000. It has since been in storage in Berlin."

The reported history was:

Wilson said Meretites came from a private European owner through a dealer in the U.S. Although Wilson declined to disclose the purchase price, he confirmed it was in seven figures. And, according to a European news account, a German court recently valued the pieces at more than $2 million.

The objects spent nearly two years in legal limbo in Germany. In 2004, Egypt filed a claim for the coffins' return.

A German court ruled late last year that Egypt had insufficient evidence to prove the objects had left that country illegally. An Egyptian law in 1983 established that any cultural object taken out of the ground henceforth belonged to the state, making it illegal for anyone to export antiquities without government permission.

Although not much is known about where Meretites was entombed or when her coffin was unearthed, records indicate the objects were exported from Egypt to Switzerland in 1972, according to the Nelson.

Saturday, October 25, 2008

The eye of a statue of Amenhotep III from his mortuary temple near Luxor was returned from Switzerland on Thursday October 23, 2008. The piece had apparently formed part of the Norbert Schimmel Collection and then passed through various hands before being acquired by the Antikenmuseum in Basel [see earlier posting]. The identities of the Swiss collector and the German dealer have not been revealed. (They may, indeed, be one and the same.)

Friday, October 24, 2008

Karl E. Meyer has written a review of Sharon Waxman's Loot! (truthdig, October 24, 2008). It gives balance to the unnecessary snippets of sleaze that have emerged in recent days (see sensible comments on CultureGrrl).

Meyer starts his review:

A seasoned reporter with an Oxford degree in Middle East studies, Sharon Waxman has updated and surpassed my explorations, in part because the outcry over the illicit traffic has reached fever pitch, provoking voluble, angry and indiscreet utterances from curators, collectors, dealers and a new breed of watchdogs, viz.: “You end up thinking we’re all a bunch of looters, thieves, exploiters, that we’re some kind of criminals … but who would be interested in Greek sculpture if it were all in Greece? These pieces are great because they’re in the Louvre.” So protests Aggy Leroule, the Louvre’s press attaché ...

He continues:

The first merit of Waxman’s book, the best on its subject, is her verbatim account of conversations with everybody who matters in the antiquities trade. This is especially true of her candid exchanges with the staffs and their overlords at the Louvre, the Met, the British Museum and the mega-endowed (circa $6 billion) J. Paul Getty Museum.

There are reports in the Turkish media that the town of Datça in western Turkey will be making a formal request for the return of sculptures removed from the site of nearby Knidos ("Datça to seek return of ancient sculptures", Today's Zaman October 23, 2008). Among them is a colossal lion and a statue of Demeter both now in the British Museum.

Some of the sculptures were removed by Charles Newton in the spring of 1858 (details in Debbie Challis, From the Harpy Tomb to the Wonders of Ephesus [2008]). As the newspaper report comments, "It was not taken without permission, as unfortunately the Ottoman palace consented to it". In other words, a firman had been granted by the Ottoman authorities for Newton's activities.

Thursday, October 23, 2008

BAAF’s quota of leading world specialists makes it not only the largest, but also the most important fair of its kind under one roof. All participants are members of the International Association of Dealers in Ancient Art (IADAA) and follow a strict code of ethics concerning the authenticity and provenance of the objects they sell.

Alan Safani of Safani Gallery Inc. in New York has been interviewed about the impact of the "credit crunch" on the antiquities market (William Sherman, "It's worst of times for the finer things", Daily News October 19, 2008). Sherman writes that for Alan Safani, "there are some days when it just doesn't pay to go to work in this struggling economy".

Safani is quoted:

I could close up shop for five months and it wouldn't make any difference ... Nobody's buying. Nobody's selling. People are paralyzed by the uncertainty of what's going on in financial markets, not just here but around the world.

Safani anticipates the selling of collections of antiquities that have been purchased as investments:

Wealthy people will have to sell art to raise money because of the stock market losses, or because they lost their jobs, and I think for me and collectors in general, there will be a window of opportunity to buy great works of art at relatively low prices ...

It's the same as the fact there are tremendously undervalued stocks out there ... The question is, when do you jump in and buy?"

Tuesday, October 21, 2008

I have been thinking about the use of the words "provenance" and "provenience" in relation to archaeological material. I prefer to use the terms "archaeology" and "history" for understanding how an object appears in an archaeological context ("archaeology") and then passes through the hands of collectors, galleries and museums ("history").

Perhaps even more devastating to our knowledge of the past is the widespread practice in the illicit trade of falsifying the alleged findspot of genuine antiquities. Once certain cultures become popular with collectors, other plundered artifacts appear on the market with the same attribution, although they may in fact come from a totally unknown area. A variation of forging provenience is the dealer's claim that individual objects were found together as a "hoard" or "tomb group," thus supposedly increasing their historical significance. In one example, Muscarella describes how ten silver vessels on sale in Munich were used as evidence for an Urartian dynasty and linked (without basis) to a site in Patmos. He ridicules the ignorant notion that looters who destroy sites would scrupulously maintain the integrity of groups as the objects pass from their place of discovery through the complexities of the antiquities market. Since provenience is the essential core of archaeology, the forgery of provenience is particularly insidious, as it uses authentic artifacts to create a false picture of the ancient past.

Special Constables from "Artbeat" will be visiting auction houses, dealers, galleries and museums in London to alert them to the issue of stolen antiquities from Afghanistan ("Police to clamp down on trade in looted Afghan art", Daily Telegraph, October 21, 2008). This is part of the Metropolitan Police's Operation Syenite. The report concluced:

Detective Sergeant Vernon Rapley from the Met's Art and Antiques Unit added: "The message is clear, do not purchase any Afghan antiquities without clear title and established provenance."

Indeed it could be well said: do not purchase or handle any antiquities without clear title and established provenance.

Saturday, October 18, 2008

The staff at Bonhams are clearly feeling sore ("furious" according to some sources) over the Italian request that several lots in this week's auctions should be withdrawn. Robert Brooks, the chairman of Bonhams, clearly felt cross (according to the press release):

we would welcome a greater openness on the part of the Italian Government, which would allow us far more advance warning and information about concerns they have. Responsible institutions need to work together and not to keep information hidden, for whatever reason, until the very last minute.

Yet the management team would do well to reflect for a moment.

At least seven of the pieces withdrawn from the Geddes collection had "surfaced" through Sotheby's in London. Thanks to Peter Watson's Sotheby's: Inside Story (London: 1997) we have been provided with a glimpse of how material passed from (looted) archaeological sites in Italy, to Switzerland, and thence to the market in London. (The chapter on Apulian pottery is more than informative and certainly relevant in this case.) I would have thought that anybody involved in the business of selling antiquities would have read this book, even if they find the revelations uncomfortable.

The second piece had surfaced at Sotheby's in London in December 1982 (lot 298). The nestoris was subsequently placed on loan at the Borchardt Library, La Trobe University, Melbourne from 1988 to 1994; Ian McPhee of La Trobe University informed me in October 2006 that Mr G. Geddes made the loan though he may not have been "the actual owner at the time".

This pot, along with other items from Boston, has been discussed in the International Journal of Cultural Property (2006) [abstract]. I would have thought that this Cambridge University Press publication was required reading for anybody selling cultural property.

All this means that if a collection, derived in part from purchases made at Sotheby's in London in the 1980s (and including significant pieces from Apulia), was offered for sale via an auction house, it does not seem unreasonable for the staff of that auction house to be on the alert.

Did the staff of Bonhams contact the Italian authorities? What form did the due diligence process of Bonhams take?

And then there is the question of selling an Apulian krater from the Robin Symes collection in the general antiquities sale. Again the staff of the antiquities department at Bonhams should have been on the alert because of a piece of Apulian pottery that did not appear to have a recorded history prior to 1970 especially given what we know of looting in southern Italy. I find it unbelievable that "professional" dealers in antiquities were unaware of the controversial nature of pieces associated with Robin Symes given the way that his name has been linked to many of the returns from North American collections.

In summary, the staff at the antiquities department of Bonhams appear to have been less than rigorous in their "due diligence" process. Indeed it begins to look like a common pattern. Just think back over the last year to the cases of the Lydian silver kyathos or the Egyptian tomb relief.

Bonham's values its integrity. It has done the correct thing in this instance (although at what seems the eleventh hour). Will its senior management team now put in place a more robust process of checking antiquities prior to a sale?

Clearly one year on there does not appear to be a robust process in place. And the chairman of Bonhams could, perhaps, ask why the present system allowed these events to take place?

Perhaps the blame lies not with the Italian authorities but a little closer to home.

Friday, October 17, 2008

I have been re-reading Belinda Tasker's forecast ("'Elvis' sculpture stars in auction of Aust art collection", AAP, July 22, 2008) about the Graham Geddes auction that took place at Bonhams on October 15.

She highlighted three lots:

Lot 10. A large early Apulian red-figure hydria. Attributed to the painter of the Berlin Dancing Girl. Estimate: £80,000 - 120,000 ("expected to attract bids of up to STG110,000 ($A225,600)"). Lot withdrawn.

Bonhams is working hard to hold its ground in the middle and lower levels of the market by making itself as attractive as possible.

There is comment on the sale of Graham Geddes collection.

A terse notice in the catalogue, however flattering the tone, revealed that Graham Geddes was an Australian dealer who started in the 1960s. It did not specify that the objects consigned for sale were those that had remained unsold, but this is how any experienced market hand with the slightest inclination to cynicism would have read the said biographical information. In the current climate, disaster seemed bound to strike. Yet, it did not.

True, a number of objects remained unwanted. In the morning, 11 of the first 30 pieces that came up failed to sell, by my count. But most of these would be unsaleable under pretty much any circumstances.

The report continues:

That left a big question mark hovering over the fate of "The Geddes Collection" due to appear in the afternoon. If the market was ever so slightly reticent, objects that had long remained in the dealer's stock despite widespread exposure - several had been included in museum shows in Australia - were in danger of being spurned en masse. This did not happen. The session went as well it could ever have, given what was on offer.

What is interesting about this report, perhaps even breathtaking in the omission, is the lack of any mention that pieces had to be withdrawn from the sales due to action taken by the Italian Government.

Sharon Waxman's Loot: The Battle Over The Stolen Treasures Of The Ancient World (New York: Times Books, 2008) is about to be published. For further details see the book's website along with preliminary reactions. [WorldCat]

Thursday, October 16, 2008

The staff of Bonhams were probably looking for some crumb of good news after yesterday's sale of antiquities. And it comes in the form of a very short piece in The Express: "GBP 24,000 for 'Elvis'" (October 16, 2008). It relates to lot 65 of the Graham Geddes collection that received so much publicity earlier in the summer. The head, deemed to share a profile with the King, once formed part of a Roman sarcophagus.

Antiquities specialist Georgiana Aitken said: "It bears an uncanny likeness to Elvis. It's the quiff that does it. It wasn't a hairstyle of the day as far as I know."

A spokesperson Bonhams has commented on the amount of publicity involved in the marketing of their antiquities: "You can imagine the amount of work that goes into marketing a sale like this around the world.". This is partly through their glossy magazine (available on-line).

The autumn 2008 number has a remarkable cover showing the detail of a battle between the Arimasps and Griffins from an Attic red-figured bell-krater attributed to the Retorted painter. This had been due to be sold at Bonhams yesterday as lot 9: but it was withdrawn. The krater had surfaced through Sotheby's (London) in 1985.

The auction house was furious that the Italian authorities gave just 24 hours' notice about the objects' suspect provenance.

"We were a bit miffed to say the least," a spokesman said. "You can imagine the amount of work that goes into marketing a sale like this around the world.

"Obviously we are not in the business of selling something that shouldn't be sold, but to have a demand made like this at such short notice is not something we take lightly."

Many of the pieces had due to be sold as part of the (Australian) Graham Geddes collection. The Telegraph added:

Bonhams said it expected Italy to make a formal claim on the antiquities, which were owned by British, Australian and American collectors.

Meanwhile Theo Toebosch writing for the NRC Handelsblad has picked up on the reason why Bonhams should have been suspicious and should have conducted a more rigorous "due diligence" process: the revelations made about antiquities from Italy surfacing through Sotheby's in London during the 1980s and early 1990s (see Peter Watson, Sotheby's: Inside Story [London 1997] [WorldCat] [American edition]). At least seven of the withdrawn pieces were derived from this route. Toebosch also comments on the unrepentant tone of the Bonhams press release.

Wednesday, October 15, 2008

BONHAMS WITHDRAWS OBJECTS FROM ANTIQUITIES SALE FOLLOWING REQUEST FROM THE ITALIAN GOVERNMENT

Bonhams has withdrawn ten objects from its 15 October Antiquities Sale which features nearly 600 items, following a formal request from the Italian Government just 24 hours before the sale.

Despite the last minute nature of the Italian request, Bonhams said it would remove the items in line with normal procedure when an object's provenance is called into question.

Chairman of Bonhams, Robert Brooks, announcing the decision said: "We are always happy to cooperate with any action that limits the chance of items being sold that should not be sold. Having said that we would welcome a greater openness on the part of the Italian Government, which would allow us far more advance warning and information about concerns they have. Responsible institutions need to work together and not to keep information hidden, for whatever reason, until the very last minute."

The ten objects - vases and sculpture - have an estimated value of £200,000. The Italian Government has claimed that the items concerned may have been illegally exported from Italy some 30 years ago.

The Bonhams press release for the sale of the Graham Geddes Collection later today quoted Chantelle Waddington (Rountree), the head of the antiquities department:

The most important item in this collection is a vase by the famed painter of the 'Berlin Dancing Girl', a vase of incredible quality and condition, which marks the transition of Greek vase painting from the Attic to the South Italian.

The piece in question is an Apulian red-figured hydria (lot 10). The estimate was £80,000-£120,000.

Why has the most important piece in the collection been withdrawn? Is another press release due?

Tuesday, October 14, 2008

I suggest that anybody interested in Apulian pottery would be advised to read chapter 5, "The Apulian Vases", of Peter Watson's, Sotheby's: Inside Story (London, 1997). It is also worth studying the related plates in some detail.

The reason is the on-going dispute between Egypt and SLAM over the 1998 acquisition of an Egyptian mask that all would agree was excavated at Saqqara in 1952. Yet although Benjamin was quoted in February 2006 as saying, "Mistakes can be made", there seems to be no resolution. (For subsequent comments by Zahi Hawass, see the interview on Al-Jazeera, July 2007.)

Benjamin is a man of integrity and must now see that his position on CPAC can only undermine its work to address the issue of cultural property.

Saturday, October 11, 2008

The sale of the Graham Geddes collection at Bonhams on October 15 will include a number of Apulian pots. (For earlier Apulian pottery at auction see here; for the publicity of the South Italian pottery in this sale see here.)

Lot 12; Calyx-krater. Attributed to the Judgement Group, by the Painter of Naples 2289. Purchased: Ex Amati Collection, London, acquired in the mid-1970s. Formerly from Christie's. On loan: the University of Melbourne (March 1988 - July 2003).

Lot 17: A pair of oinochoai. Attributed the group of the Virginia Exhibition Painter. Previous history: Ex Amati Collection, London, acquired in the mid-1970s. On loan: the University of Melbourne (March 1988 - July 2003).

Lot 22: Volute-krater. Attributed to the Geddes painter. Previous history: "Ex private collection, acquired in 1976. This is the name vase of the Geddes Painter. It was named as such by Dale Trendall as a token of his friendship with Graham Geddes." On loan: the University of Melbourne (March 1988 - July 2003); the Museum of Mediterranean Antiquities, Monash University, Melbourne (November 2005 - April 2008).

The Apulian volute-krater that is due to be auctioned at Bonhams next week (October 15) is one of several Apulian pieces in the same auction. (This is separate from the sale of the Graham Geddes collection.)

Lot 179: Squat lekythos. Previous history: "Acquired by the French owner at auction in the UK in 1993. Accompanied by a French passport."

Bonhams experienced some light-hearted publicity when it announced details of its forthcoming sale of antiquities from the collection formed by Graham Geddes. The profile of a fragmentary Roman sarcophagus evoked "the King" and the headline writers went to town.

But now the New York Times has joined the commentary on the sale of antiquities next week: Elisabetta Povoledo, "Italy Questions Items in Antiquities Auction", October 10, 2008. The focus is on a single Apulian krater that had once passed through the collection of Robin Symes.

Yet there is a more important issue at stake. What are the sources for antiquities that have no declared (and secure) histories ("provenance") prior to 1970?

“We have not officially heard anything from the Italian Parliament. We would obviously act the moment we receive anything requiring us legally to respond and do as we always do. If there is any question mark on something like this we either withdraw it or get into discussions ... No one here was aware of the statement in the Italian Parliament.”

It is also reported that the Apulian krater in question is "believed" to have been owned by Symes "prior to 1980" and that it had passed through “many hands over the past 28 years”. So the piece is only "believed" to have been in the Symes collection prior to 1980; the spokesperson does not say that the ownership was documented. And who were the people attached to these many hands? This spokesperson has only served to raise more questions. (And it is so reminiscent of the seafaring collector of Egyptian antiquities ...)

The dispute is over an Apulian (South Italian) volute-krater from the "Robin Symes Collection" that is due to be auctioned next week. Bonhams will apparently press ahead with the sale.

It is reasonable for Rutelli to be asking questions, whether or not the piece has come from the dispersal of the assets of Robin Symes. How did the krater enter the Symes collection? Who was the previous owner?

Thursday, October 9, 2008

Francesco Rutelli, the one-time Italian Minister for Culture (MiBAC) who can be credited with the success of retrieving so many looted antiquities, has issued a press statement about Robin Symes today. This appears to be in response to yesterday's news that the Symes collection would be dispersed.

Essentially, Rutelli draws attention to way that MiBAC has been negotiating with the liquidators of the Symes collection to recover archaeological material that appears to have been derived from Italy. Rutelli reminds us of the "scandalous phenonmenon" (scandalosi fenomeni) of the way that the material was acquired and draws attention to some of the pieces returned from major North American museums that have been associated with Symes (see my overview). Rutelli calls on Sandro Bondi, the present Italian Minister for Culture, to resolve the issue.

Rutelli feels that time is of the essence. Important pieces from the Symes "collection" are due to be auctioned in London next Wednesday, October 15. (I have already noted that an Apulian volute krater from the Robin Symes collection is due to appear at Bonham's next Wednesday. Is this what Rutelli is talking about? Are other items in the sale derived from the same source but not listed as such?)

Rutelli calls on the Italian Minister to take urgent action. First, he asks that the Minister to identify his plan of action to recover antiquities (now in the Symes "collection") that may have been removed from Italy illegally. Second, he urges the Italian government to block the auction of objects that may have been looted from archaeological sites in Italy.

Further comments have been issued via ANSA and they will be discussed separately.

Wednesday, October 8, 2008

Fabio Isman has updated the Robin Symes story ("Scandalo a Londra: l'arte rubata finisce in vendita", Il Messaggero October 8, 2008). Some 17,000 objects (worth 160 million Euros [= £125 million]) were recovered from 33 warehouses; see also Peter Watson and Celia Todeschini, The Medici Conspiracy, 254 [and my earlier comments]. It is now estimated (as a result of a study by a team from Italy) that 60% of the objects were removed from archaeological sites in Italy; that is to say over 10,000 of the items in storage. (Where were the other 7000 or so pieces found? Greece? Turkey?)

The present proprietors of the Symes' material are now reported to be dispersing the collection to realise his assets: hence the headline in Il Messaggero. I can now reveal that the British Department of Culture Media and Sport (DCMS) informed me in April 2008 that an "arrangement involving the Italian Authorities and other parties ... was facilitated by this Department [sc. DCMS], which is specific to an individual case". The DCMS added: "Unfortunately we are unable to disclose any further details in respect of this arrangement as this information is confidential".

Who is responsible for dispersing the Symes material? Where will it be sold? Will it be in Europe, North America or the Middle East?

Tuesday, October 7, 2008

The "Nostoi" exhibition in the New Akropolis Museum already includes a fragment from the Parthenon frieze that has been returned from Palermo. Later this month two further fragments at present in the collections of the Vatican will be handed over (Associated Press).

Keith Austin in the Sydney Morning Herald ("Britain plays keepsies as the Greeks fume", October 7, 2008) has a blunt commentary on what he perceives as British Imperialism and the non-return of the Parthenon marbles for display in the New Akropolis Museum.

Monday, October 6, 2008

Two pieces of Lucanian pottery have appeared in the "Nostoi" exhibitions. Both pieces are of the same shape, a nestoris (or trozzella). They have been attributed to the Amykos painter and were probably made in the vicinity of Metaponto in southern Italy. Both had been acquired by the Museum of Fine Arts (MFA) in Boston: 1971.49 and 1998.588.

The first was purchased from Dr Leo Mildenberg of Bank Leu AG, Zurich. (It appears to have been supplied with a fabricated history suggesting that the nestoris had passed through a Madrid private collection.) The MFA catalogue (no. 4) notes, "This nestoris may be the earliest known red-figure example".

The second piece had surfaced at Sotheby's in London in December 1982 (lot 298). The nestoris was subsequently placed on loan at the Borchardt Library, La Trobe University, Melbourne from 1988 to 1994; Ian McPhee of La Trobe University informed me in October 2006 that Mr G. Geddes made the loan though he may not have been "the actual owner at the time". The nestoris was then sold at Sotheby's in London (December 1996), purchased by Widgie and Peter Aldrich, and acquired by the MFA in 1998.

Graham Geddes appears to have acquired at least three other items that passed through the December 1982 Sotheby's (London) auction:

lot 201: Etruscan black-figured amphora, attributed to the Micali painter. On loan to the Museum of Mediterranean Antiquities, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia, March 1995 - April 2008. Due to be auctioned at Bonham's (London) October 15, 2008, lot 11.

lot 291: Apulian red-figured calyx-krater, attributed to the Darius painter. This apparently passed into a private collection (1982-1994) before forming part of the Geddes collection in 1994; it was sold at Christie's New York in 2001.

This December 1982 sale at Sotheby's also included an Attic red-figured amphora attributed to the Berlin painter that has been returned to Italy from the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York (and also featured in "Nostoi") (lot 220).

Geddes is reported to have formed one of the largest private collections of South Italian pottery in the world. He bought in good faith at auction, and was guided by Professor A.D. Trendall (see earlier comments). In 1996 Geddes himself said "I prefer to buy items with provenance".

What are the histories ("provenance") of these pieces prior to their surfacing at Sotheby's? Who consigned them?

FEEDJIT Recommended Reading

Feedback

Some Recommended Books

About Me

David Gill is Professor of Archaeological Heritage and Director of Heritage Futures at the University of Suffolk. He was a Rome Scholar at the British School at Rome and a Sir James Knott Fellow at the University of Newcastle upon Tyne. He was subsequently part of the Department of Antiquities at the Fitzwilliam Museum, University of Cambridge, and Reader in Mediterranean Archaeology, Swansea University. He holds the Archaeological Institute of America's Outstanding Public Service Award (2012).